Ars reports on the debate over whether creation is viable as science.

Bill Nye and Ken Ham square off at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Eric Bangeman / Ars Technica

PETERSBURG, KENTUCKY—A brightly lit auditorium was packed with young adults wearing bow-ties, young-Earth creationists, and a gaggle of media there to maybe see sparks fly. The sparks could have been generated by Ken Ham, president/CEO of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, and Bill Nye the Science Guy, but instead, they mostly talked past each other for two-and-a-half hours on a snowy Kentucky night. The topic was one near and dear to both debate participants: the nature of acceptable scientific discourse. More specifically, they attempted to answer the question “is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”

Ham and Nye both led off with short, five-minute statements followed by 30-minute presentations punctuated by PowerPoint slides, video clips, and graphics intended to buttress their cases. Unsurprisingly, Ham’s starting point was Genesis, and he kept coming back to the assertion that God’s word as revealed in the first two chapters of Genesis is the definitive authority. All scientific inquiry should therefore begin with and proceed from there.

To make the case that science and creationism were compatible, he showed short video clips of scientists from around the world who believed in a literal six days of creation. "People are going to see what we really believe tonight," Ham promised. "I believe science has been hijacked by secularists" who seem to indoctrinate folks in the "religion of naturalism."

Nye countered with arguments from the fossil record, ice cores taken from Greenland, and tree rings to demonstrate that a literal reading of Genesis is unable to account for many scientific discoveries. Given that some of the core samples show over 680,000 annual progressions through the four seasons, Nye pointed that we'd have to experience well over a hundred winter-summer cycles every year to account for that number. "Wouldn't someone have noticed that?" he asked.

Ken Ham argues for two types of science: "observational" and "historical."

Eric Bangeman / Ars Technica

One of the points of contention throughout the debate was the term "science." Ham made the distinction between "historical science" and "observed science." The former relates to things that happened in the past, things that cannot be directly observed. In contrast, observed science is the present, that which can be tested, observed, and repeated. Nye rejected those distinctions. He kept returning to the point that there is only one kind of science, and it's all observational. "On CSI, there is no distinction between observational and experimental science."

How does one deal with the existence of the Grand Canyon and the layers of sediment and fossils? For Ham, we can't really know for sure, since we weren't there to observe what happened. "None of us saw the sandstone being laid down." During his presentation, Nye countered Ham by pointing out that, if the young earth creation arguments were correct, we'd see "churning and bubbling and writhing" in the Grand Canyon fossil record. "You never, ever, find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one," he says. "You never find a lower one trying to swim its way to the higher one."

After the 30-minute presentations, both participants were given five minutes for rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. During that time, both Ham and Nye attempted to poke holes in the other's arguments. For Ham, that meant being critical of various dating methods used by scientists. Other than the Bible, "there is no accurate dating method," Ham argued emphatically. "None." Nye again focused on Ham's distinction between "historical" and "observable" science, a distinction that does not exist for anyone other than "Ken Ham and his followers." He also repeatedly challenged Ham to offer some examples of predictive science based on young-Earth creation.

Some of the most interesting exchanges came during the Q&A session. Moderator Tom Foreman of CNN had a list of audience-submitted questions directed at either Nye or Ham, with the other given a chance to respond. When asked about what existed before the Big Bang, Nye began his answer with "I don't know."

"This is the great mystery—you've hit the nail on the head," he replied passionately. "What was before the Big Bang? This is what drives us, this is what we want to know. Let's keep looking, let's keep searching."

For Ham, the answer is simple. "There's a book out there that tells us where matter came from," he explained. "It's the only thing that makes logical sense."

Both Ham and Nye made a case for science education in the public schools, but, as one might expect, they each came at it from a different perspective. Ham wants creation science to be a part of the curriculum in part because it encourages critical thinking. For Nye, the US needs to embrace science in the curriculum in order to be competitive. "If we stop driving forward, looking for the next answer, we in the United States will be out-competed by other countries, other economies."

The debate ended as it began, with the two adversaries shaking hands and then walking off the dais. Were hearts touched and minds changed? Probably not. But two men with starkly different beliefs and viewpoints made their case stridently and respectfully before a rapt, well-behaved audience. Today, that counts for something.

Ken Ham's organization later posted video of the debate to YouTube.

Stay tuned for an in-depth feature on the debate and its historical antecedents. We're also going to head over to the Creation Museum on Wednesday morning to take in the sights.

727 Reader Comments

Fear is a fundamental aspect of having a conscience - it is not something that is instilled, it's inherent. And it is that fear that keeps us from abandoning all respect for authority and rules, and ultimately leads to self-discipline.

I have heard one description of God that couldn't be disproven: that of a simulation designer that never enters the simulation and doesn't affect it while it's running. In my opinion, that's pretty uninteresting.

"Prove that God Exists" - Look around at all the different species, the balance of nature on this planet compared to all other planets, the creation of all planets and galaxies themselves, the Torah ( the bible ), and take time to listen to the personal stories of all the millions that have had real life-touching experiences with god, and you won't need that "proof" any longer.

Your lack of imagination doesn't constitute proof.

Quote:

"Then prove that the bible is from this god, and that no other ancient religious texts are from this god."- Did you examine the link in my orignial post ???? Here's your proof.... Read the .PDF

Finding patterns in random gibberish is what humans do. It doesn't constitute proof.

Quote:

"You base your ideas on ignorance, incredulity, and wishful thinking." - I base my ideas on God's word and teachings, what do you base your's on ????

As has been said many times, evidence.

Quote:

"By the way, the Catholic Church -- you know, the first one, that St. Peter founded, not the new-age ones that split off later -- believes in evolution" - Not any of the Catholic churches that I know of !!!! I also have a few issues with the Catholic church, like they believe in Purgatory ( not mentioned in the torah ), It's followers believe that if they talk to a priest in a box, and say a few hail-mary's, their sins are forgiven ( the true bible says that 1. You shall have no false idols, and that you will worship no one before me ( meaning don't pray to saints, because they're not god !!! ). And 2. you talk directly to God, you don't need a "Middle-man" ( Read Priests ), doing that for you !!!

This is what religions have been doing since the beginning of religion (which occurred right after the first prostitute). When someone has an idea they gather together enough people that agree with them, or that want the free cookies, or whatever and that becomes a new truth. There seem to be other people that read your Bible and come up with different interpretations - what makes you right?

Quote:

And if that still dosen't convince you, then just think like this....... Just in case you're wrong about the whole "God" thing, wouldn't it be better to error on the side of caution than find out the hard way ????

I've never understood this argument. Paying taxes to the government keeps me out of jail, but I don't have to pretend I believe in what my government is doing with that money. Painting my face blue and exposing my belly button might make me accepted in some cultures, but I wouldn't have to believe that it's the height of fashion. But how do I believe in something that I know in my heart is false? Pretending, putting on a false face, being a hypocrite would seem to be the wrong approach. So what do you suggest?

I have heard one description of God that couldn't be disproven: that of a simulation designer that never enters the simulation and doesn't affect it while it's running. In my opinion, that's pretty uninteresting.

I'm a hard core atheist, but you cannot disprove the existence of god, or elves, or unicorns.

At best you can reasonably point out that there is no evidence for their existence, but that isn't the same thing.

I have heard one description of God that couldn't be disproven: that of a simulation designer that never enters the simulation and doesn't affect it while it's running. In my opinion, that's pretty uninteresting.

I'm a hard core atheist, but you cannot disprove the existence of god, or elves, or unicorns.

At best you can reasonably point out that there is no evidence for their existence, but that isn't the same thing.

Not necessarily. If your definition of God includes regularly performing miracles, and e.g. parting the Red Sea, turning a staff into a snake, or talking to people via a burning bush, then that God clearly doesn't exist. Then you have questions like 'if God made man, and God is perfect, why is man so imperfect?" that cannot be adequately answered. There are plenty of logical proofs against the existence of God.

Not necessarily. If your definition of God includes regularly performing miracles, and e.g. parting the Red Sea, turning a staff into a snake, or talking to people via a burning bush, then that God clearly doesn't exist. Then you have questions like 'if God made man, and God is perfect, why is man so imperfect?" that cannot be adequately answered. There are plenty of logical proofs against the existence of God.

I don't think any of those things are part of anyone's definition of god. Besides, you can't prove that god isn't talking to someone through a burning bush right this instant.

And a perfect and all powerful god would certainly be capable of choosing to create an imperfect being is he wanted to. That's not even a remotely serious challenge to the existence of god.

And there aren't any SUCCESSFUL logical proofs against the existence of god. None. Philosophy 100 pretty much covers that.